Ex Parte EVANS et al - Page 9


                 Appeal No.  2001-2584                                                         Page 9                  
                 Application No.  08/462,817                                                                           
                 In re Soll, 97 F.2d 623, 38 USPQ 189 (CCPA 1938); In re Wahlforss, 117 F.21                           
                 270, 48 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1941), “[i]t appears to be well settled that a single                          
                 species can rarely, if ever, afford support for a generic claim.”  On the surface, by                 
                 quoting this particular section from Clarke, it would appear that the examiner is                     
                 concerned that appellants have not provided evidence of a sufficient number of                        
                 species to represent a genus.  This is, however, inconsistent with the examiner’s                     
                 position (Answer, page 10), that Green                                                                
                        can only be antedated by showing that [a]pplicant[s], prior to the                             
                        publication of Green et al., had reduced to practice the now-                                  
                        claimed genus, or a species of the now-claimed genus which would                               
                        have rendered the species described by Green et al. to have been                               
                        obvious.  … [T]he novelty of the instant invention is found in the                             
                        “exogenous DNA” encoding the “steroid receptor protein.  Applicant                             
                        has failed to explain how the reduction to practice of an isolated                             
                        cDNA encoding a human glucocorticoid receptor would have                                       
                        rendered obvious the isolated cDNA encoding the estrogen                                       
                        receptor of Green et al.                                                                       
                        The inconsistency in the examiner’s position is highlighted by appellants’                     
                 response (Reply Brief, bridging paragraph, pages 8-9), where with reference to                        
                 In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 146 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1965); In re Wakefield, 422                           
                 F.2d 897, 164 USPQ 636 (CCPA 1970); and The Manual of Patent Examining                                
                 Procedure (MPEP), appellants argue:                                                                   
                        [A] 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration must establish possession                            
                        of either the whole invention claimed or something falling within the                          
                        claim (such as a species of a claimed genus), in the sense that the                            
                        claim as a whole reads on it. … If the affidavit contains facts                                
                        showing a completion of the invention commensurate with the                                    
                        claims and as shown in the reference, the affidavit or declaration is                          
                        sufficient, whether or not it is a showing of the identical disclosure                         
                        of the reference.                                                                              
                                                                                                                      







Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007